Talk:Max Müller/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Muller's educational Qualifications

I have added fact tag to Muller's PhD degree claim. This claim is not founded on any documentary source. Please remove the tag once you get such a source.-Bharatveer (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"not founded on any documentary source'? What are you suggesting? Muller's doctorate is not disputed by anyone. Are you disputing the topic? You know it's easy to find the information. Why not just take a minute to google the facts, rather than waste time disputing the undisputed? The former approach actually improves the encyclopedia, the latter litters it with ugly tags. It takes about the same amount of time. In what way is the current citation inadequate? It is written by two university professors. Paul B (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The sources cited are not sufficient. The source cited is the Gifford lecture series which says " He was awarded a Doctor of Philosophy degree in 1843, at the age of 19, for his dissertation, ‘On the Third Book of Spinoza’s Ethics, De Affectibus.’ But this fact has been disputed by many scholars. They are of the opinion that Muller's degrees (both M.A & Ph.D) are non-existent.
Paul, Can you show us the source material used for the Gifford biography??.-Bharatveer (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you making this up? No scholar disputes that Muller received his PhD from Leipzig in 1843. None whatever. It is referred to in all the literature on Muller, whose career is an open book and whose papers are in the public domain. Just type "max muller" and "doctorate" into google or google books. [1] [2] What exactly do you want - a photocopy of the certificate? Paul B (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Bharatveer, show proof of this dispute and we can go somewhere with it. Mangoe (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed with Mangoe. Give us an indication of what RS say about these "many scholars" who dispute the doctorate are. Without that evidence, really, there is no basis of discussion. John Carter (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
He's parroting some blog-warrior, as usual. Though it could be of momentary interest to see which spit-flecked raving bozo it is this time. rudra (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I suspect it will remain a mystery. Paul B (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Bharatveer, I am not sure why this is being disputed. Just a superficial google book search should give plenty of reliable sources. --TheMandarin (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, Please try to follow Wikipedia:Civility & WP principles which says "Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks".

Prof.Prodosh Aich desribes this issue in detail in his book "Lies with long legs" (title of German Original edition "Lügen mit langen Beinen"), pages.363-369.

Excerpts from the book: 1) "Then Max Muller, M.A." Where and when did Max Mueller earn his MA? We haven't been able to find it out yet. We know by now that here the usual question will be raised whether our question was really important as a manipulative strategy to disrupt the focus. We hurry to admit, it isn't important which exams an author has passed. We look into the quality of the contents. But whenever an academic degree is specifically highlighted, a problem is created. What happens if an academic title is illegitimately acquired?......................on this title page there is a subtle indication that he had been a Professor at the Oxford University.This was not the case in 1859. The Taylor foundation was never a part of the Oxford University. Why these false references? Why have these false references not been objected to or publicly criticised? (Page 368)

2)" In his autobiography published in 1899, there is no reference of an M.A exam. In his biography published by his wife Georgina in 1902 he was even attributed a fanciful "Dr.phil" from the Leipzig University. Without any complaints yet. Of course. She just didn't do it crudely on the title page like "Dr. Phil. Max Mueller" or so" (page 368) These exerpts shows the disputed nature of his educational credentials. So I think a fact tag is in order here or otherwise a complete rewriting is required.-Bharatveer (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Who on earth is "Professor Prodosh Aich"? This is just someone's stream of consciousness. Paul B (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Here is the bio of Pradosh Aich, the author of the self-published book. Clearly a fringe and unreliable source. Abecedare (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
In fact Prof Aich is behind the times. It was proven long ago that Max Muller never existed. [3]. Paul B (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Before you start dissing people, User:abecedare should say why he assumes the book as "self-published". Prove it otherwise retract your false accusation.-Bharatveer (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The website makes it clear that it is his own publishing house. Read it. Paul B (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint you. See these details :Book-" Lies With Long Legs: Discoveries, Scholars, Science, Enlightenment -Documentary Narration; Author: Prodosh Aich ;ISBN: 8187374322;Publishing Date: 2004 ;Publisher: Samskriti. Your attempts at discrediting Prof.Aich seems pathetic.-Bharatveer (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The book was published by his own publishing house Acharyya in the German edition. [4] It is therefore self-published. The Samskriti edition is the English translation. Without any information about "Samskriti" we have to identify this as a self-published work. Even if Samskriti is a commercial publisher that does not make the book reliable. Thousands of unreliable sources are published by commercial publishers. In any case "professor" Aich does a fine job of discrediting himself. The passages you quote are gibberish. He laughably says that Georgina Muller invented his PhD in 1902! Why then did Leipzig university send him congratulations in 1893 on the 50th anniversary of his doctorate,[5] and why do all scholars accept it as fact? You don't seem to have the most basic ability to distinguish between obvious nonsense and common sense. 11:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
And googling "Samskriti" turned up zilch, which suggests a very minor publishing enterprise, at best. Moreschi (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Googling for Samskriti Publishers gives this -[Googlesearch]-Bharatveer (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
It appears to be a small independent publishing venture based in New Delhi. I guess its copy-editing staff are over-worked. How else would prose like the following get published? "Of course. She just didn't do it crudely on the title page like "Dr. Phil. Max Mueller" or so." Paul B (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Aich appears to be a professor at Oldenburg University, as per this extremely critical review of the book in question. The other mentions I find of the idea from the book are apparently all from India, an area which could be seen as prejudiced. I think we would like to see some positive mention of the idea from some academic or scholarly source independent of India perhaps before giving this clearly fringe theory any weight in the article. Not all fringe theories deserve mention in the main article on a subject. John Carter (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes, scintilating stuff indeed! "Mueller became an instrument in Macaulay’s plan to convince the majority of the local population that the English alien rule was better for them." Muller was actually one of Macaulay's most determined opponents! Paul B (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

<deindent>
The whole deal is unadulterated fringecruft. For example the authors's website highlights a review in Midwestern Epigraphic Journal. This sounds impressive, but on further invesitigation it turns out to be a newsletter produced by The Midwestern Epigraphic Society, "An organization concerned with the study and scientific research of epigraphy, ancient history, and archaeology, particularly as it applies to precolumbian visits to the Americas by members of high cultures." (emphasis added). Its just a group of fringe hobbyists who meet for "Monthly Breakfast Meetings, first Saturday of the month, 8:30 a.m.; Bob Evans Restaurant" in Columbus, OH to argue for 2,000 year old technology found in America that is apparently ignored by actual archaeologists. Far from serious scholarship, this all is not even noteworthy fringe.
By the way, I'll take the claim that Aich is a professor at Oldenberg University with a huge grain of salt. he himself only claims to be a "University teacher and publicist". Abecedare (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The University of Leipzig's online archive of Promotions (from 1810 to 1991) contains a record for a certain Fridericus Maximilianus Mueller who was born in Dessau and received his degree in 1843. The record can be viewed here: Mueller, Fridericus Maximilianus, Philos. et Philol. Orient. Cult. Seminar. Reg. Philol. Sodalis Dr. phil. (geb. in Dessaviensis) promoviert 1843. I would suggest that this is confirmation of Max Müller's disputed Phil Doc. With regard to the missing M.A. exam, I read that it was an honorary MA that was then "made M.A. by Decree of Convocation", as openly declared in the Life and Letters. Vacarme (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Muller's marriage certificate

For what it's worth, here is a copy of Müller's marriage certificate: http://www.ergono.me.uk/Muller_Grenfell1859.jpg
Enjoy. Vacarme (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Very nice. It appears that his father's name was "William". Perhaps we should change the Wilhelm Müller article. Seriously, as I said on the Reliable Sources board, I do appreciate your efforts to find relevant primary sources. Paul B (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A MUCH BETTER ARTICLE ON MAX MULLER FOR THOSE INTERESTED

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Max_M%C3%BCller — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.203.143 (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That's just an older version of this article. Talk about dopey. Paul B (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Relationship of Muller and McCaulay

Not that I would seem to question the intent of the main authors of this article, even after seeing their many tenuous debates about British debauchery not being as such and smashing down anything counter-demonstrative of Mullers "impeccable" character. WHY is there little to nothing on Mullers relationship with McCaulay? Absolutely astonishing and reminiscent of the dubious tactics used by the British and now the "Marxists" to white wash. As A) Muller's main benefactor and B) the main influence behind his taking the position of Sanskrit chair; it is at the least astonishing and at the most a heinous and egregious omission on the parts of the jealous editors. It is QUITE a well known fact that McCaulay despised Hinduism and actively worked to distort any and all european perceptions regarding them. As well PAUL B why absolutely no reference to this quote " Max Muller to Duke of Argyll on Dec. 16, 1868, several years after Macaulay died. It contains the statement "The ancient religion of India is doomed, and if Christianity does not step in, whose fault will it be?"." which I pulled from one of your comments on the McCaulay page. Clearly there is controversy here for a large sector of people that you are 1) willing to either consciously deny and promote your own version of historiography OR 2) you are laughably unaware of the great extant of deabte which this subject causes. And please don't try to paint my comments as Hindutva, Saffron, etc or any of that other rubbish that I've seen you use to cowtow other people in Hindu oriented article talk forums. I'm an atheist yet I don't believe in denying my country's history or attributing success and credit where it is not due.

If you are going to maintain an objective role in the creation of this article then you damn well better put both sides.142.59.203.143 (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Jainesh Raj Bali

http://books.google.ca/books?id=tHgDTBjrAx4C&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=Muller+and+MaCaulay&source=bl&ots=XyCNpla5IW&sig=DxRDo359llyDCHWFXbrWvJJdabw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2PFAUZTqH8iIqQHE6IGYBA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Muller%20and%20MaCaulay&f=false

Are you completely incompetent? If you actually BOTHER to read the article you will see that the quotation you refer to is in it. Muller opposed Macaulay's views about Sanskrit. If you read the Macaulay article you will get a clear idea of what Macaulay's aims actually were. Macaulay did not actively work to "distort" anything. He relied on what other people told him, and he was speaking from an "enlightenment" point of view. Read up further in this article for a clear statement of the relationship between Muller and Macaulay and the contexct of Muller's "ancient religion of India" passage - which was just the standard view at the time. It's deeply, deeply depressing to read the same lies repeated over and over by people who have never read anything actually written by these authors - just the garbage on Hindutva websites. Paul B (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Max Müller

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Max Müller's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ODNB":

  • From Herbert Hope Risley: "Risley, Sir Herbert Hope". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/35760. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
  • From John Crawfurd: Turnbull, C. M. "Crawfurd, John". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/6651. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done - my mistake. - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

CITEVAR

If you want to use the {{rp}} method of citation then you need first to obtain consensus per WP:CITEVAR. It seems to have been introduced after a prior citation style had existed and thus I am reverting it pending discussion. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

There were 30 references and now there are, pointlessly, 45. Well done! Happy now? CITEVAR doesn't specifically mention {{rp}} as well you know. You are just being tediously petty-minded. Vacarme (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
No, I am applying policy. Which is something you seem not to be doing, here and elsewhere. Happen I do not particularly care for the "[ ...]" style but it needs discussion before being changed.

Similarly, discussion is required regarding the date format, which at present includes both dmy and mdy. I have no idea what format is used in Germany but since he spent most of his life based in the UK, I would venture that the standard format should be dmy. There is a script that can fix all these but I am not willing to deploy it without consensus, a policy that I think perhaps you need to revisit. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No, you are applying policy very selectively. I didn't invent {{rp}} or use it on a whim. It exists and it serves a useful purpose. As for NPA, you decided to get personal first. Vacarme (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Just stop it, please. I never suggested that you invented {{rp}} but everything else you say is just your opinion and we do not work on the basis of your opinion alone. If you cannot understand consensus then maybe this is not the right place for you. It seems that there are other policies that you cannot understand but that one underlies practically everything that goes on here at Wikipedia - it is so fundamental to how we operate that it really is a core policy. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Max or Maximillian

An ip editor has been persistently changing his middle name to the "correct" version, which is, according to him/her Maximillian. All the best sources I know give his middle name as Max. His wife says the name was taken from the central character in Der Freischütz. See the opening pages of her biography of her husband, The Life and Letters of the Right Honourable Friedrich Max Müller (1902) [6]. This is how his name is given in the most authoritative sources, including the published Collected Works Of The Right Hon. F. Max Muller. This is how is name is spelled in biographies of him. This is how his name is spelled in the official archive of his papers [7]. This is how the E.B. spells his name [8]. Against this we have some potboiler short biography in something called "The New Student's Reference Work" [9]. I think it's clear which name should be preferred. Paul B (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, his middle name should be Max not Maximillian. Vacarme (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
palbee, It seems only the writer of the so called 'pot boiler short biography' has cared to look in to primary documents of the so called 'Max Muller'. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_Student%27s_Reference_Work/M%C3%BCller,_Friedrich_Maximilian gives his name as 'Müller (mü'lẽr), Friedrich Maximilian' and NOT MAXIMILLIAN. so much for your 'historical accuracy'. Since you are scared of looking into primary documents, See this link
http://archiveshub.ac.uk  ; Search for "Reference Number(s); GB 106 3JBL/01/14
Alt. Ref. Number:GB 106 5641;Dates of Creation [Nov 1854].
From this , you will get -
"Photocopy of letter. Written from Oxford. Enjoying his confinement to his room for a week on doctor's orders as he can work undisturbed. He pities his friend Mr Thomson who is miserable with a relapse, but has asked him to write an article on Indian Logic for the 3rd Edition of his 'Laws of Thought'
Administrative / Biographical History.........
Biog: Frederick Maximilian Muller (1823-1900) (known as Max Muller); William Thomson (later Abp of York)"
Is this enough for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.76.76 (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid it's not enough. The "Biog: Frederick Maximilian Muller (1823-1900) (known as Max Muller)" text appears to have been added by the Archive Hub administrators rather than information derived from the original letter. Also, the title of the archive record is "Max Muller to Josephine Butler" which would seem to support Paul Barlow's position. Vacarme (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
You're pretty rubbish at research aren't you? You've clearly no idea what an "original" source actually is. Whether wrong name is spelled with one "l" or two is irrelevant, since both are wrong according to the most reliable sources. Are you saying his own wife got his name wrong?! Paul B (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course I should add that it would not be surprising if some people during his lifetime assumed that Max was short for Maximilliam or Maximilian, and so referred to him by variants of that name, or addressed letters to him with what they thought was his full name. What matters are the most authoritative sources: reference works, archives and family documents. Paul B (talk) 11:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
terms like "Pretty rubbish at research" should be aimed at those 'so called scholars' who even after 100 years of his death refuses to look at his primary documents, but nevertheless is very enthusiastic about abusing anyone who tries to do proper research. Have you read 'The Essential Max Müller' by Dr.Jon Stone.
This guy and his book is a recommended read in many Universities. In this book he writes "After this anthology had gone to press, an essay on Max Muller's scholarship, by Norman Girardot (2002),appeared in the February 2002 issue of History of Religions. Its author's baseless and bizarre portrayal of Max Muller is worth discussing at lenth. Girardot begins his essay by erroneously referring to Muller as "Frederick Maximilian Muller,.."
Can you reason out why this is being argued in this 'official biography' of Muller? it is quite simple. They are afraid to look at Muller's primary records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.76.76 (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
That message must take the palme d'or for sheer idiocy. You quote an expert who RIDICULES another writer for using the name Maximilian to show how ignorant he is. Mind boggling. Also, what are these primary records you keep referring to? You haven't shown us a single one. Paul B (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
that 'expert' is ridiculing N.J.Girardot, the author of the book 'The Victorian Translation of China: James Legge's Oriental Pilgrimage' (2002). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.61.168.13 (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
That expert was presented by you as an authority yesterday, which of course he is, so your inverted commas just show how absurd your continued claims are becoming. When you are in a hole, stop digging as the saying goes. Legge is Giradot's "hero" as Stone puts it, but he is plain wrong about Muller. Incidentally, Stone says that he got the wrong name from the text accompanying this cartoon. Paul B (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Shows in a big way, 'scholarly' attitudes nowadays ( yours as well as HIS). Question dr.stone regarding this 'explanation' ( what you have so proudly stated here) he says he just referred Chaudhuri's book, which is just another joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.61.168.13 (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
You are no longer saying anything that even approximates to sense. If you wish to get the "last word" please feel free, but I see no point in continuing discussion at this level. Provide substantive new evidence or go away. Paul B (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
PaulB says "Provide substantive new evidence or go away". Of course Wikipedia is his ancestoral property. Lets get to the evidence part. One Indian researcher Biswendu nanda with some simple emails were able to get documents as well as official reply from University of Leipzig. (there is no surprise to know that the real scholars like Dr.Prodosh Aich were always in the right to claim that the king of Indology, Max Muller was a Con more than a "Doc". See this link (http://lokfolk.blogspot.com/2012/10/e-mail-to-biswendu-of-kalaboti-mudra-of.html) - "Dear Biswendu Nanda.
At the university archive of Leipzig is neither an entry in the book of promotion nor a promotion file of Friedrich Max (Maximilian) Müller. He was a student at the university from 1841 to 1844. There is an entry in the discharge register (with attended lectures) and two entries in the register of students.
Enclosed you can find the corresponding digital copies.
Yours sincerely
Nicole Panser
Universitätsarchiv Leipzig
Prager Str. 6"
PaulB, Before you find another excuse to justify this con artist , better check those documents ( sent by Univ of leipzig) there as well. Please see his OFFICIAL NAME AS WELL AS HIS DEGREE. I think you have a lot of changes to make in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.118.149 (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I have to say that the Leipzig documents look authentic and do provide substantive new evidence. Therefore I'm quite happy to accept that his middle name was in fact Maximilian - I'm not really bothered either way so long as the information is correct. With regard to Müller's degree qualification being false, that is another matter and remains unproven. More on that shortly... Vacarme (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I can't see this blog page properly, as it freezes up when trying to access it (I've tried on home and work computers). However, blog pages are not by any stretch of the imagination reliable sources. The ludicrous "Dr" Prodosh Aich wrote a hilarious book called Lies with Long Legs which absurdly claims that Muller's PhD was invented by his wife after his death.I would not be surprised if the supporters of this person are not above manufacturing evidence to support their claims. All reliable sources are consistent on this matter. However, I will raise the matter at the Reliable sources discussion board if 62.61... / 85.154 wishes to pursue this quest, the purpose of which is completely obscure to me. Paul B (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
'I can't see this blog page properly, as it freezes up when' = http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/dog+ate+my+homework
Grow up, PaulB, When truth stares you in the face, learn to accept it. Or is that you just can't handle the truth. Calling others ludicrous, hilarious etc is not going to help. Read the 'Univ of leipzig' documents a 100 times, the con artist's name is Friedrich Maximilian Muller and he never got any 'doctorate' from Univ of Leipzig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.61.164.157 (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Vacame, Since you have accepted, Please add maximilian to his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.61.164.157 (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Why on earth would I or anyone be "scared" about whether his name was Max or Maximilian? All the reliable sources say Max, so that's what this article should say. His PhD is a more serious matter of course. Vacame has already linked to the university site showing when he received it. The idea that Muller could somehow have got a job as a professor at Oxford University by lying about his qualifications is indeed utterly ludicrous. It's bizarre that you and your confreres want to believe that. It comes from a totally confused understanding of western engagement with Sanskrit. Lying about history to sustain ideology does no good. Why don't you actually read on of his books. Paul B (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Glad that the article now reads his name as 'Friedrich Maximilian'. Vacame has taken one link from Univ.leipzig website to prove that muller received his degree, which is totally misleading. There is no proof even to show that muller ever wrote his examinations. (FMM , of all his writings had just a single 'line' about his coming for writing his exams in leipzig & that was a lie).FYI, I have read all his 'autobiographies'. I suggest you to read 'Lies with long legs' which is available online now at www.lieswithlonglegs.com for free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.61.164.157 (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I have read it. The title applies to the book itself. There's no proof that almost anyone wrote their examinations. There's no proof that I wrote mine. That's a completely silly argument. I am raising this at the reliable sources board. Paul B (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Your statement"There's no proof that almost anyone wrote their examinations. There's no proof that I wrote mine" shows the extreme silliness of your 'knowledge' as well as 'research skills'. Scholars such as Prodosh Aich, B.D.Bharti got that con artist's name correctly where as you and your 'peer reviewed' scholars are 'still debating' his name even after a good hundred years of his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.61.164.205 (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
No they did not. The fact that you have to resort to such laughable arguments as this indicates the utter bankrupcy of your position. How can you possibly imagine that he could have passed as a majr scholar -with other scholars constantly discussing his specialist subject with him. It's beyond absurdity. Paul B (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
They both did mention his name as Frierich Maximilian Muller,Try reading their books first.

You are not alone here, PaulB. People can understand whose 'arguments' are laughable. Regarding 'Muller's passing off as a scholar' , the only thing that can be said that it was peculiar to the so called 'Victorian scholarship'.That age produced many such charlatans. As Prodosh Aich mentions in his book of the encyclopedia Brittanica 'judgement/conclusion' about Muller just 11 years after his death.- "Though undoubtedly a great scholar, Max Müller did not so much represent scholarship pure and simple as her hybrid types — the scholar-author and the scholar-courtier. In the former capacity, though manifesting little of the originality of genius, he rendered vast service by popularizing high truths among high minds. In his public and social character he represented Oriental studies with a brilliancy, and conferred upon them a distinction, which they had not previously enjoyed in Great Britain. There were drawbacks in both respects: the author was too prone to build upon insecure foundations, and the man of the world incurred censure for failings which may perhaps be best indicated by the remark that he seemed too much of a diplomatist. But the sum of foibles seems insignificant in comparison with the life of intense labour dedicated to the service of culture and humanity." (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Max_M%C3%BCller,_Friedrich) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.175.142 (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

However hard PaulB tries to hide 'Maxmilian', evidences keep coming up. See this review (which appeared in 'The Journal of Religion') of Norman Girardot's work 'The Victorian Translation of China: James Legge's Oriental Pilgrimage' From this - "Girardot is fascinated by the contrasting lives of Muller and Legge. Whereas Legge was the quiet, misunderstood, and underrated mission- ary-scholar who lived an austere life, Muller was one of the academic stars of his age, constantly in the limelight and a well-connected "prolific aca- demic entrepreneur" (p. 2). Friedrich Maximilian Muller was born in Dessau the son of a German poet, published a work on Sanskrit fables at the precocious age of twenty-one, studied at Paris, and arrived in England in 1846 to edit Sanskrit manuscripts preserved in London and at the Bodleian Library in Oxford.- Hope PaulB & other Muller fanboys are satisfied with this SECONDARY SOURCE ( this being a western source).62.61.160.57 (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
reference is D. E. Mungello, The Journal of Religion, Volume 83, Issue 4, Pages 585-59262.61.160.57 (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
This conspiracy theory that "Muller fanboys" are trying to hide his real first name is totally ridiculous. During the man's lifetime, "Maximilian" was a normal German first name, and "Max" was not. It was the way most boys named "Maximilian" were referred to and most men named "Maximilian" were referred to by their closest friends. Having "Max" as one's actual, official first name in that era was almost borderline embarrassing, and certainly quite incongruent for a distinguished scholar. Sort of like an English professor with first name "Johnny" today. Hans Adler 13:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Never mind the 'fanboy stuff'. You have a 'secondary source' now. Make the change.62.61.188.138 (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
No. There are more than enough secondary sources that give his second given name as "Max". Yours is not better, it's much worse for the purpose. The title of yours, which you failed to mention, is "A Confucian Voice Crying in the Victorian Wilderness - The Victorian Translation of China: James Legge's Oriental Pilgrimage". The author of an article of that title is of course much less likely to get Müllers given names right than the author of a Müller biography. Hans Adler 10:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
" The author of an article of that title is of course much less likely to get Müllers given names right than the author of a Müller biography." Adler, question is not about the title of any book, it is about scholars who do their job properly and it seems Dr.stone did not care to look at the primary sources.-82.178.178.32 (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Primary sources have already been provided along with secondary ones. You are choosing to believe the less pertinent ones. Paul B (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Which primary sources say his middle name is 'Max'? pls cite them.62.61.178.175 (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The letters in the archive that's listed above. His own letters. His wife's. BTW if you actually read what his wife says, she says he chose to use his middle name as part of his surname - which was quite a common idea at the time, sometimes in hyphenated form. His arch-rival Monier Williams used his own first name as part of his surname, becoming Monier Monier-Williams. These are just name conventions of the period. There's nothing mysterious or sinister about it. Paul B (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
His wife's book also has the name 'Maximilian in at least 2 places. His wife cannot be held realiable. In fact she has elaborated on her husband's fantasies. Muller's fanboys later copied the same stuff to ency. britt and others.82.178.231.171 (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The word "Maximilian" appears twice in the book. On neither occasion is it with ANY reference to Muller's name. There are no fantasies except in the confused mind of Aich and his fanboys. Why on earth would anyone try to pretend his name was Max rather than Maximilian? Does being called 'Max' somehow make you seem more scholarly? It's a ludicrous viewpoint. Paul B (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
"On neither occasion is it with ANY reference to Muller's name". This name is referred to in both of these occasions when Max Muller is being referred to. read Life & letters once more, if you have not read that properly. Muller fan boys don't like to touch his primary documents. They know very well that it is quite problematic.-85.154.176.217 (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Georgina Muller

We need to be wary of over-reliance on Georgina Muller because she is not independent of the subject matter and, indeed, might be considered a primary source. - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact, there is a general problem with use of primary sources in this article. For example, the Aryan section relies entirely on his own work. We do not know whether he changed his mind, whether this is the most apt of his writings on the subject etc and it is for reasons such as this that we should prefer secondary sources. We are not qualified to judge. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
That 'problem' is not wikipedia's alone. If you check all his biographies, right from ENcyl. Britt. and others, they are entirely copied from his wife's stories. It needs to be added here that writers of these biographical articles were often muller assistants.-85.154.176.217 (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Wilhelm Max Müller

I have removed some unsourced content relating to his children. However, there is a big problem involved in this because one of those children was said to be Wilhelm Max Müller. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which now exists as a source for the paragraph, refers to a son called John but no Wilhelm Max is mentioned. It also says that John was born in 1867, whilst our article for Wilhelm claims 1862 and is sourced to an old copy of Who's Who that I cannot view. ONDB does mention a child born in 1862 but that is said to be his second daughter, Mary.

As a general rule, an ODNB entry reviewed in 2007 is going to be more reliable than some WW entry from way back when, but there is something not right here, somewhere. I'll try to dig into this within the next 24 hours or so. - Sitush (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Wilhelm Max is included in the Catalogue of the papers of Friedrich Max Müller at the Bodeleian. Chaudhuri says, "There were three daughters, the first Ada, born in December 1860; the second Mary, born in February 1862; and the third Beatrice, born in August 1864. Then arrived the only son, on June 9, 1867." (p.271) He does not give the name of the son on that page, but on the next page refers to "the son Wilhelm" going to a school in Germany. Paul B (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
There are many apparently reliable sources giving his dates as 1862-1919, but there are also some that give 1867-1919. It's possible that a misprint in Who's Who has spawned numerous copycat errors, but it's difficult to find a definitive answer. Paul B (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks for that. It is weird, isn't it? I wonder if "John" might be what he was referred to in England because of Anglo-German stigmatisation, although his surname would give it away in any event. Still, I think we should go with WMW as his name, add a neutral footnote for the ODNB variant (it is usually reliable), and I'll email a mate at ODNB to follow through. There seems little chance that our WMW article has his d.o.b. correct, so maybe that should be amended to 1867. How does all this sound? - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm strongly inclined to believe that 1867 is the correct date, but I'd prefer to be a bit more confident before changing the date which is, after all, supported by a number of sources. Paul B (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I was going to distinguish between William and Wilhelm Max Muller. Then I saw the abuse editors had given each other over whether it should be 'Max" or 'Maximilliam' and decided it wasn't worth it.Therealvince (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

So your sole ever edit to Wikipedia is to say you were going to do something but wont. I don't know what you mean by "distinguish between William and Wilhelm Max Muller", since we have no page on a "William Max Muller". The closest name I can find is the painter, William James Müller. I don't think his name is similar enough to require a disambiguation hatnote, if that's what you mean by "distinguish between". In any case, that should be discussed on the Wilhelm Max Müller page. Paul B (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

I just converted the publications section to {{cite book}} format using the Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books extracting the metadata. Since his works has gone through numerous editions it is best to link them only to Wikisource when/if they became available there.

The 2005 book by Stephen G. Alter added in the references section is the only full volume biography of the American linguist William Dwight Whitney, which contains a chapter dedicated to his rivalry with Müller. Can be useful for expanding both the biographies. Solomon7968 17:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Birtherism

Addition of "somewhere-born" in the first sentence is unnecessary if it is supposed to signify ethnicity.--98.88.133.35 (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with it? See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Opening_paragraph, esp. point 3. It is necessary because he was a part of British rule, yet he was born in Germany. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I have no objection to "born in Germany" in the parentheses or infobox. I find the hyphenated modifier "somewhere-born" distasteful. Yes, it is my opinion. Others are fixated on place of birth and their opinion is different from mine.
Plus, "somewhere-born" can mean a wide range of things. John Doe could be born in Germany but migrated to Britain before attending elementary school. Or, John Doe could be like Max Muller who even attended Leipzig University in Germany. Why do I mention this? Because education had a greater influence on Muller's later academic output yet we don't say "German-educated."--98.88.133.35 (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
This problem reminds me of Stefan Hell: "Stefan Walter Hell (born 23 December 1962) is a Romanian-born German [[physicist] ...."
Several IP's from Atlanta/USA were edit warring to remove Romanian-born from the sentence until an administrator protected the article. JimRenge (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Max Müller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox image needs to change

The more "iconic" and well-known images of Müller are as grey-haired old man, so the current lead is somewhat jarring at first glance. Surely the one apparently used on Indian postage stamps is in the public domain and more appropriate here? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Verification on Claim about translating the Rg Veda

I'm concerned about the following passage:

"Scientific American carried his obituary in the December 8th, 1900 edition of the magazine. It was revealed that Max Muller had in fact usurped the full credit for the translation of the Rig veda which was actually not his work at all, but of another unnamed german scholar whom Muller had paid to translate the text. To quote from his obituary in Scientific American, "What he constantly proclaimed to be his own great work, the edition of the "Rig Veda," was in reality not his at all. A German scholar did the work, and Muller appropriated the credit for it."

I've tried to look around for a confirmation of this but can't seem to find it. Does anyone else have a source besides this rather defamatory obituary that verifies this statement? Etherfire (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

A contemporary author is Hermann_Grassmann, of particular note is the huge dictionary [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Eldritch (talk • contribs) 04:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Max Müller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Max Müller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.242312
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Max_Müller/Archive_2&oldid=1073783909"